Thinking about mirrorless

Cagey75 said:
The XT2 is slightly better performing in low light according to many reviewers. In fact besides video features, there's nothing really between an upgraded 2 and a 3
Click to expand...


I have been quite tempted by the idea of a 3 to run alongside the other bodies but I reckon that for MY wants/needs, a couple more 2s will be a better option. I don't need any faster AF and rarely shoot video so a trio of 2s with the latest firmware will sit nicely in the bag.
 
My A7iii does all and more than my D750 did and I love that camera.

The A9 especially with the new firmware update is more accurate and faster than the D500 apparently (and costs a lot).

Saying mirrorless is still behind DSLR in terms of AF or performance is not true at all and if you look back at all my posts I was so anti-mirrorless I wouldn’t have it any other way!

Anyway, back to the OP. I use my Sony for sports. No lag, AF is fast and accurate and overall now I have got used to it (takes some after so many years on the D750) I just find it so good to use.

I can’t speak of older models or the Fuji as I have never tried or used them so others can get pointers on that one.
 
I've owned a D810 and a D500 and loved them both. The D500 AF was very good. However, I moved to the darkside and purchased a Sony a9 (and an a6500 for street photography), I have to say that I prefer the Sony over the Nikon, It's even better than the D500 in many respects, AF being just one of them. I'm now in the process of trialing an a7r3, so far very impressed (except for the cost). I'm of the opinion that mirror-less is the way to go, it can only get better, I'm afraid DSLR's will struggle to keep up.
 
Nod said:
I have been quite tempted by the idea of a 3 to run alongside the other bodies but I reckon that for MY wants/needs, a couple more 2s will be a better option. I don't need any faster AF and rarely shoot video so a trio of 2s with the latest firmware will sit nicely in the bag.
Click to expand...

IMHO the only reason to get a X-T3 over a X-T2 is the Af and or the video, if you dont need either the X-T2 is a no brainer and like it has already been mentioned pick up a good used one and its arguably one of the best value cameras you can get at the mo.
 
I already have one 2 which runs alongside a 1 and a Pro 1. Very tempted to make it a 3x2 kit and have the 1 as a body for changing lenses/primes/legacy with the three 2s having the 10-24, 18-135 and 100-400 pretty much welded on to reduce the dust problem.
 
Probably the main downside for me going Sony mirrorless is the limited availability of reasonably priced used lenses. The cheaper ones don't seem to be able to utilise the camera's focusing abilities.
 
Was out with the wife today and stumbled across Park Cameras store near Burgess Hill, Had a really good look at all the different options and im firmly convinced for size and weight I will be looking at either an XT2/3, OMD EM1 or G80/G9.

Had a good chat with a Panasonic expert about micro 4/3rds, both the olympus and panasonic models felt better in the hand than an XT2. Really liked the G80 button layout.
Im not in any hurry and need to do alot more research but im not going to be investing any further in Nikon.
 
I'm going to start the hobby back up again shortly but I'm not so convinced of the mirrorless yet, I might have to go and have a look and see for myself what the real difference is.
 
AgentOrange76 said:
friend has an olympus OMD EM1 and i cant fault the image quality i have seen both printed to 14inch and digital
I follow Craig Roberts on instagram and Youtube and he solely uses Micro 4/3rds and gets stunning results. Certainly good enough for digital or A3 printing which realistically is as much as most of us will ever do

Do i get Fuji XT2/3 - lens choice seems odd compared to 24-70 70-200 of Nikon and Canon

Do I go with an OMD EM1 and adapt to 2x crop factor and again odd lens ranges
Click to expand...

Craig Roberts was one of the reasons I decided to try mirrorless. End up with an micro 4/3rds set up myself. As you say how often do people print bigger than A3 regularly.

As for the odd focal ranges I find Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus offerings more in line with the classic full frame focal lengths. 35,50 and 85 primes and the 24-70, 70-200 offerit. It seems more Nikon and Canon in there crop sensor line ups have poor offerings to match these focal lengths.
 
ian-83 said:
Craig Roberts was one of the reasons I decided to try mirrorless. End up with an micro 4/3rds set up myself. As you say how often do people print bigger than A3 regularly.

As for the odd focal ranges I find Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus offerings more in line with the classic full frame focal lengths. 35,50 and 85 primes and the 24-70, 70-200 offerit. It seems more Nikon and Canon in there crop sensor line ups have poor offerings to match these focal lengths.
Click to expand...

So I discovered today!:clap:
 
gman said:
Probably the main downside for me going Sony mirrorless is the limited availability of reasonably priced used lenses. The cheaper ones don't seem to be able to utilise the camera's focusing abilities.
Click to expand...

I don't see many complaints about that. The Samyangs for example all seem to focus fast. The tamron 28-75 gets rave reviews. Even some adapted lenses are quick to focus.
 
TGphoto said:
I don't see many complaints about that. The Samyangs for example all seem to focus fast. The tamron 28-75 gets rave reviews. Even some adapted lenses are quick to focus.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but my old D3 could get certain shots far easier than my A6000. I've been keeping an eye on the new AF Samyangs, how do you find them with AF speed?
 
gman said:
Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but my old D3 could get certain shots far easier than my A6000. I've been keeping an eye on the new AF Samyangs, how do you find them with AF speed?
Click to expand...

TBF the A6000 AF is quite old, the new A6400 is supposed to be blazing fast as it has some of the A9 parts. I used the Samyang 35mm 1.4 on an A7iii, had no problems with eye AF using C-AF, not used the Sony 35mm 1.4 so can't compare it with that.
 
Willo said:
TBF the A6000 AF is quite old, the new A6400 is supposed to be blazing fast as it has some of the A9 parts. I used the Samyang 35mm 1.4 on an A7iii, had no problems with eye AF using C-AF, not used the Sony 35mm 1.4 so can't compare it with that.
Click to expand...

I'm sure at the time the A6000 was supposed to have the fastest AF system so I was expecting quite a lot compared to the aging D3 but I'm still convinced it was the lenses which let the AF system down and I'm sure the E Mount line up at the time weren't great for AF speed. I think I had a discussion on here about it and someone mentioned that the 70-200mm f4 was fast - but then it did have dual+ focusing motors, which I believe a lot more of the newer lenses now have. Plus there's the Master lenses with Sony's SSM. I also think that there may be a few non-Master lenses which use SSM but it's hard to find consistent and reliable information on this. There is a site which lists all the lenses and their focus systems but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

I'm still apprehensive to invest and I suppose I've adapted to overcome as much as I can. Although I am talking about one of the most challenging types of AF being fast moving subjects coming directly towards you. My D3 paired with the magnificently sharp AF-S 80-200mm 2.8 was great for this, especially my dog charging towards me but now I have to manually focus on a point upon which he will pass through and rely on 11 fps plus a little bit of extra dof to get him in focus. But for all the times I'm out now shooting I can't justify the cost of some of these lenses and the damn second hand prices never seem to drop!

I almost bought the Sony 90mm Macro last week but then I discovered the aperture gets smaller as you head towards 1:1 so that put me off.
 
As Fuji X-T2 user, if you're considering Fuji I would say think about how you use your camera.

Those dials look pretty sexy, bet they are pretty hard to turn if you have the camera at your eye. If you like to set your settings while looking at your camera, this is the camera for you. If you're changing settings while holding the camera at eye level, Fuji probably isn't your brand, it will drive you mad. That shutter speed dial is pretty hard to reach, and the exposure dial is rather hard to turn as well.

As for image quality, I don't think there is any difference in image quality between any of the major manufacturers. Naturally, APS-C is gonna have worse high ISO noise or digital range than full frame, and m4/3 will be a bit worse than APS-C. This is then offset by size/weight.
 
Edman said:
As Fuji X-T2 user, if you're considering Fuji I would say think about how you use your camera.

Those dials look pretty sexy, bet they are pretty hard to turn if you have the camera at your eye. If you like to set your settings while looking at your camera, this is the camera for you. If you're changing settings while holding the camera at eye level, Fuji probably isn't your brand, it will drive you mad. That shutter speed dial is pretty hard to reach, and the exposure dial is rather hard to turn as well.

As for image quality, I don't think there is any difference in image quality between any of the major manufacturers. Naturally, APS-C is gonna have worse high ISO noise or digital range than full frame, and m4/3 will be a bit worse than APS-C. This is then offset by size/weight.
Click to expand...
Fuji X-T2 set in T shutterspeed can be controlled via the front or back dial as you wish with camera at eyelevel. Some of the lenses can be set using the other dial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gman said:
I'm sure at the time the A6000 was supposed to have the fastest AF system so I was expecting quite a lot compared to the aging D3 but I'm still convinced it was the lenses which let the AF system down and I'm sure the E Mount line up at the time weren't great for AF speed. I think I had a discussion on here about it and someone mentioned that the 70-200mm f4 was fast - but then it did have dual+ focusing motors, which I believe a lot more of the newer lenses now have. Plus there's the Master lenses with Sony's SSM. I also think that there may be a few non-Master lenses which use SSM but it's hard to find consistent and reliable information on this. There is a site which lists all the lenses and their focus systems but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

I'm still apprehensive to invest and I suppose I've adapted to overcome as much as I can. Although I am talking about one of the most challenging types of AF being fast moving subjects coming directly towards you. My D3 paired with the magnificently sharp AF-S 80-200mm 2.8 was great for this, especially my dog charging towards me but now I have to manually focus on a point upon which he will pass through and rely on 11 fps plus a little bit of extra dof to get him in focus. But for all the times I'm out now shooting I can't justify the cost of some of these lenses and the damn second hand prices never seem to drop!

I almost bought the Sony 90mm Macro last week but then I discovered the aperture gets smaller as you head towards 1:1 so that put me off.
Click to expand...

Every mirrorless manufacturer claimed the fastest AF a few years ago, they probably still do, thats usually with a kit lens in ideal conditions and using AFS. It was never going to AFC like a D3 or AF as fast in low light, the mirrorless of those days also usually opt to ignore phase and switch automatically to contrast detect which will lock more accurately in the dark BUT (much) slower than PDAF.

You don't need Sonys best lenses or 1st party to achieve extremely fast and accurate AFC on the latest cameras (mk3 & A9), Id imagine the new 6400 also delivers.
 
soeren said:
Fuji X-T2 set in T shutterspeed can be controlled via the front or back dial as you wish with camera at eyelevel. Some of the lenses can be set using the other dial.
Click to expand...
Yes, and if you have it as the front wheel, its not bad, buuut... its still not as nice as dials of a pro-grade DSLR, or even an Olympus E-M series.

Its kinda like the dedicated exposure dial. Yes, it is there, and you can turn it, even at eye level. But it just has that resistance that doesn't make it smooth to operate in a way that allows you to forget about it.

Mind you, I had an X-pro2 before that, and that dedicated exposure dial had less resistance... which merely meant that every time you pulled the camera out of the bag you had 1/3 stop different exposure.
 
twist said:
Every mirrorless manufacturer claimed the fastest AF a few years ago, they probably still do, thats usually with a kit lens in ideal conditions and using AFS. It was never going to AFC like a D3 or AF as fast in low light, the mirrorless of those days also usually opt to ignore phase and switch automatically to contrast detect which will lock more accurately in the dark BUT (much) slower than PDAF.

You don't need Sonys best lenses or 1st party to achieve extremely fast and accurate AFC on the latest cameras (mk3 & A9), Id imagine the new 6400 also delivers.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right regarding being slower with AFC, I certainly don't remember reading anything about the super fast af speed being restricted to certain types of focusing but perhaps it's buried somewhere.

Which body do you have and which lenses do you find fastest with regard to AFC?
 
gman said:
Sounds about right regarding being slower with AFC, I certainly don't remember reading anything about the super fast af speed being restricted to certain types of focusing but perhaps it's buried somewhere.

Which body do you have and which lenses do you find fastest with regard to AFC?
Click to expand...

I've used a lot of mirrorless over the years, not just Sony, Sony wise pretty much everything since nex3. I liked the a6000 it was a big step up over nex 6 but wasnt d700/d3 etc level in afc... But I never expected that as I was familiar with BS marketing claims... Still a nice camera for the money.

I'm now using and very happy with the a7iii, over the years nothing came close to prosumer DSLR level in terms of AF from any manufacturer ime (till now where it exceeds cameras like the d750). I have the 35 art and 85 1.8 Fe, I cut down a little to only 2x FL. I had the samyang 35 1.4, zeiss 35 1.4, zeiss 55, zeiss 35 2.8, Sony 35 1.8, 16-50, 55-200, Sony 50 1.8 Oss, Sony 18-55, some Leica and CV stuff, I've probably forgotten a few AF lenses. The GM zooms are faster (by design just like L and G lenses) but I'm not finding big fast primes slow at all.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I've used a lot of mirrorless over the years, not just Sony, Sony wise pretty much everything since nex3. I liked the a6000 it was a big step up over nex 6 but wasnt d700/d3 etc level in afc... But I never expected that as I was familiar with BS marketing claims... Still a nice camera for the money.

I'm now using and very happy with the a7iii, over the years nothing came close to prosumer DSLR level in terms of AF from any manufacturer ime (till now where it exceeds cameras like the d750). I have the 35 art and 85 1.8 Fe, I cut down a little to only 2x FL. I had the samyang 35 1.4, zeiss 35 1.4, zeiss 55, zeiss 35 2.8, Sony 35 1.8, 16-50, 55-200, Sony 50 1.8 Oss, Sony 18-55, some Leica and CV stuff, I've probably forgotten a few AF lenses. The GM zooms are faster (by design just like L and G lenses) but I'm not finding big fast primes slow at all.
Click to expand...

Thanks and very interesting. I was also looking at the A7 as I've got that FF itch again, but the mark 2 as I'm sure I read that the first one had poor AF. Do you know if the A7 Mk2 AF is better than the A6000 with AFC?

EDIT: I've done some Googling on it and it seems it's on par with the A6000, whereas like you say the Mk3 was a proper step up but for my photography needs it's too much money. So now I'm possibly back at looking for a used D7xx or D8xx. Shame because everything else about the A6000 I like and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 produces some great images, but I need the AFC performance for the things I like to photograph.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Thanks and very interesting. I was also looking at the A7 as I've got that FF itch again, but the mark 2 as I'm sure I read that the first one had poor AF. Do you know if the A7 Mk2 AF is better than the A6000 with AFC?
Click to expand...

The MK2 has similar AF to the original, the only standout is the ibis, the a6000 has better af.
 
gman said:
Thanks and very interesting. I was also looking at the A7 as I've got that FF itch again, but the mark 2 as I'm sure I read that the first one had poor AF. Do you know if the A7 Mk2 AF is better than the A6000 with AFC?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends what you compare it to but for many things the original A7 focus will be just fine. For example when I use my A7 with face detect I think it uses Voodoo.
 
Cheers, I was adding some further comments to my post which has crossed. Thankfully IBIS isn't something I've ever found myself wanting because my subjects are always moving so fast, so I need shutter speed and afc speed! I do love Eye AF on the A6000 though.
 
I've just noticed that the D500's AF system is the same as the D5's. Could it be worth going DX for the MultiCam20k?......
 
gman said:
Cheers, I was adding some further comments to my post which has crossed. Thankfully IBIS isn't something I've ever found myself wanting because my subjects are always moving so fast, so I need shutter speed and afc speed! I do love Eye AF on the A6000 though.
Click to expand...

If you can't stretch your best option imo is still a DSLR.
 
gman said:
I've just noticed that the D500's AF system is the same as the D5's. Could it be worth going DX for the MultiCam20k?......
Click to expand...

The d500 AF is superb but I'd miss FX to much, so would get a d750 instead.
 
Edman said:
Yes, and if you have it as the front wheel, its not bad, buuut... its still not as nice as dials of a pro-grade DSLR, or even an Olympus E-M series.

Its kinda like the dedicated exposure dial. Yes, it is there, and you can turn it, even at eye level. But it just has that resistance that doesn't make it smooth to operate in a way that allows you to forget about it.

Mind you, I had an X-pro2 before that, and that dedicated exposure dial had less resistance... which merely meant that every time you pulled the camera out of the bag you had 1/3 stop different exposure.
Click to expand...
It must come down to personal preferences. I find the shutterdial and EC dials on top easy and intuitive to manipulate and the comando wheels are out of my way doing their job without drawing attention to themselves
 
I made the switch from Canon (5D) to Fuji (X-T2) last year. I had considered doing it in 2014, but held off - I wish I hadn't! Personally I prefer the handling of the Fuji system and the good compact lenses that are available.
 
If you go to a shop and have a test of a mirrorless you will quickly discover the problem with small bodies with small little buttons.

The real advantage I found with them is live exposure preview.

You can walk outside in the dark and nail the exposure of a bright lamp-post first time.

Or a white dress on a sunny day or aircraft/birds in the sky.
 
Caerus said:
If you go to a shop and have a test of a mirrorless you will quickly discover the problem with small bodies with small little buttons.

The real advantage I found with them is live exposure preview.

You can walk outside in the dark and nail the exposure of a bright lamp-post first time.

Or a white dress on a sunny day or aircraft/birds in the sky.
Click to expand...
HMMM really?
 
soeren said:
HMMM really?
Click to expand...
It depends on the body design. For example the missus Oly e-m10 is a bit cramped but ok, while the Nikon D3200 I found almost unusable because it felt so cramped. It's not restricted to mirrorless, but if one of your selling points is a smaller body then it's a design aspect requiring careful attention.
 
On the other hand Nikon Z and eos R aren't exactly small and I don't find the buttons on X-T2 tiny small hence the "really?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Caerus said:
If you go to a shop and have a test of a mirrorless you will quickly discover the problem with small bodies with small little buttons.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't really consider cameras such as the Olympus E-M1 II, or Panasonic G9, or Fuji X-T3 to be really small and have tiny buttons.

In fact, I'd say there's more people saying they're over-sized.
 
Caerus said:
If you go to a shop and have a test of a mirrorless you will quickly discover the problem with small bodies with small little buttons.

The real advantage I found with them is live exposure preview.

You can walk outside in the dark and nail the exposure of a bright lamp-post first time.

Or a white dress on a sunny day or aircraft/birds in the sky.
Click to expand...

The size thing really only applies to certain mirrorless bodies. A lot of early mirrorless stuff was squarely aimed at size and weight reduction but the market is now full of mirrorless cameras in all shapes and sizes. The EOS R and Nikon Z bodies feel very like DSLR's not to mention even bigger stuff like the GFX50s....
 
Caerus said:
If you go to a shop and have a test of a mirrorless you will quickly discover the problem with small bodies with small little buttons.
Click to expand...


I've got big hands and fat fingers but manage to use the buttons and dials on the X-T bodies without a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top